Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Rasheed Ahmed And Ors. on 5 December, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003CRILJ2591
Author: M.R. Verma
Bench: M.R. Verma
ORDER M.R. Verma, J.
1. This revision-petition under Sections 397, 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner/State (hereafter referred to as 'the petitioner') against the order dated 24-5-2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, Sirmaur Sessions Division at Nahan whereby he had discharged the respondents/accused (hereafter referred to as 'the accused persons') of the offences under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983.
2. Brief facts leading to the presentation of the present petition are that on the report made by Pradeep Kumar, Range Officer, Nahan, Police Station Enforcement (South Zone, Shimla) on 12-5-1995 registered case F.I.R. No. 116/95 under Sections 379, 420, 120-B, I.P.C., 26, 41, 42 of the Indian Forest Act, Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 14 of Himachal Pradesh Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983 on the allegations that on 8-5-1995 said Pradeep Kumar received a secret telephonic information that illicit felling was being done in the jungle bordering Haryana. On receipt of information, he alongwith other forest officials proceeded to reserve forest Sangholi and found that 139 trees of Khair and 3 of Kokat had been illicitly felled. During the course of investigation when the said forest was again inspected it was found that 285 trees of Khair of the value of Rs. 1,05,814/- were illicitly felled from different compartments of the forest. Accused-Rasheed Ahmad and Roshan Deen were arrested during the investigation and some wood valued at Rs. 52,014.50 was recovered from them. The investigation further revealed that accused-Ajmer Singh was the Forest Guard and accused Het Ram was the Deputy Ranger of the concerned reserve forest at the relevant time. They inspected the area of the forest from where the trees were felled several times during the relevant period but failed to report about the felling of the trees and theft thereof and thus failed in the discharge of their duties. On completion of the investigation, the concerned Police Officer presented challan against the accused persons under different penal provisions already set out hereinabove in the Court of the learned Special Judge. After hearing the parties, the learned Special Judge concluded that there were no grounds to presume that any of the accused committed offences punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act and accordingly discharged the accused of the said offences with liberty to the State to prosecute the accused under any other provisions of law in an ordinary Criminal Court. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
3. I have heard the learned Law Officer for the petitioner-State and the learned counsel for respondent No. 4 as none appeared for other respondents despite notice and have also perused the records.
4. A bare perusal of the charge-sheet submitted against the accused persons reveals that there are no allegations of their or anyone of them being habitual of accepting any gratification, valuable thing without or for inadequate consideration or they or anyone of them had dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriated any property entrusted to or under their/his control as public servant for their/his own use or by corrupt or illegal means had obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage or both or any of the two accused persons who are forest officials, is in possession of property disproportionate to their/his known sources of income. There is not even material to infer the commission of any of the aforesaid acts by them. Therefore, the learned Special Judge had rightly come to the conclusion that there is not even an iota of evidence to establish the necessary ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Thus, the order passed by him discharging the accused persons of the said offence being proper and legal, does not call for any interference.
5. There are, however, specific allegations that accused Het Ram and Ajmer Singh despite having visited the area at the relevant time in their capacity as the In-charge of the Forest Block and the Forest Beat respectively have failed to report about the unlawful damage which had been caused in the three compartments of the forest. They were, however, discharged by the learned Special Judge on the premises that they failed to report the felling of the Khair trees and theft of the wood but there is no allegation that such felling etc. was for commercial purpose, therefore, the prima facie case under Section 14 of the H.P. Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983 was also not made out.
6. Section 14 of the H.P. Prevention of Corrupt Practices Act reads as follows :--
"14. Whoever, being an officer-in-charge of the preservation and maintenance of forest or disposal of forest produce, having jurisdiction intentionally or knowingly permits, connives or abets or fails to report, the--
(i) illegal felling of trees or extraction of logs, or
(ii) illegal girdling or trappings, or
(iii) theft of wood, timber or bamboos, or other forest produce, for commercial purpose shall be punished with imprisonment of either description which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine :
Provided that the Court may for any special reason to be recorded in writing, impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than one year."
7. It is evident from a bare reading of the section that when an officer-in-charge of Preservation and Maintenance of a forest or disposal of forest produce intentionally or knowingly permits or connives in or abets illicit felling of trees or extraction of logs or illegal girdling or trapping of trees or theft of the forest produce for commercial purpose, he commits an offence punishable under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983.
8. In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that accused-Het Ram was the Deputy Range Officer (Block Officer) in-charge and Ajmer Singh was the Forest Guard in-charge of the forest from which the trees have been found felled and wood thereof stealthily removed. It was, therefore, their official duty to preserve and maintain the said forest and to report about illicit felling of trees and theft of wood from the said forest. It is the case of the prosecution that during the relevant period 285 Khair trees were found illicitly felled apart from 3 Kokat trees and the wood thereof was found having been dishonestly and illicitly removed during the relevant period. It is also prima facie made out in view of the damage report Nos. 67, 20 to 25/95-96 placed on the record that accused -Ajmer Singh had visited compartment Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the concerned reserve forest during the period 30-4-1995 to 3-5-1995. However, the damage reports issued by him concerns virtually a nominal damage to the forest produce by cutting the stumps or dry trees of Khair by different persons. This damage has been verified by accused-Het Ram. Evidently he could do so after having visited the spot. Thus, during the relevant time he had also visited the compartment Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the reserve forest concerned. It cannot be presumed at this stage that while having visited all the three concerned compartments it could not be detected that from these compartments 285 trees of Khair and 3 Kokat trees had been felled and wood thereof removed. It can also not be presumed that such a huge number of trees was felled for the sake of fun and not for commercial purpose as the Khair wood is a commercial commodity meant for extracting "Katha." Thus, on the basis of material on record it could not be held at the stage of consideration of prima facie case that the felling of trees and removal of wood thereof was not caused for commercial purpose and no case is made out against the accused persons.
9. Be it stated that when after considering the police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the documents filed with it and making such examination if any of the accused as may be thought fit, if the Court finds that such material prima facie discloses that the accused has committed an offence which it is competent to try then it shall proceed to frame charge against the accused. At this stage the Court is not required to enter into meticulous examination of the evidence and material nor it is to apply the standard of proof as at the final stage of a criminal case. Even if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there are grounds to presume that the accused had committed the offence, it has to frame a charge against the accused.
10. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Des Raj (Cr. Revision No. 93 of 2002 decided on 27-8-2002) while dealing with a similar question, this Court held as under :--
"5. It may be pointed out at the very outset that Sections 227 and 228 of the Code make it manifest that the Court has to apply its mind to the material on record to be satisfied whether there are grounds to proceed against the accused or not? In case the Court, on appreciation of the material on record, comes to the conclusion that the allegations against the accused are frivolous and the material placed before the Court does not show a prima facie case to proceed, the accused has to be discharged. However, if there is sufficient material to proceed against the accused, the Court has to frame a charge against the accused. The test to determine whether there are grounds to proceed or not, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it would be determined on the basis of the material placed before the Court by the prosecution. While perusing the material with a view to find out whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused or not, the standard of test will not be the same as is finally applied before finding the accused guilty or otherwise. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon the material on record leading to forming a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused, may justify the framing of charge. Therefore, only the broad probabilities of the case, the deciding effect of the evidence and infirmities, if any, emanating from the records, are to be taken into account to arrive at the conclusion. No roving inquiry into the alleged facts and weighing the material on record as if the conclusion is to be recorded, after recording of the evidence are required. In case the Judge arrives at the conclusion that the allegations are frivolous and there is no material prima facie supporting the allegations constituting the offence, the accused has to be discharged but if the material on record probabilise the allegations and even if creates grave suspicion, a charge will have to be framed against the accused."
11. Keeping in view the allegations against the accused persons in the charge-sheet about their involvement in the commission of offence punishable under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983 and the material placed on record and the aforesaid settled position in law the learned Special Judge has erred in discharging the accused persons of the offence punishable under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act and such an order is, therefore, unsustainable.
12. As a result, this revision-petition is partly allowed and the impugned order to the extent it discharges the accused persons under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983 is set aside. However, the order to the extent it discharges the accused persons of the offence under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is maintained.
13. There is no dispute that pursuant to the impugned order fresh charge-sheet has not yet been presented in any Court of law, therefore, the fresh charge-sheet will be presented by the prosecution now before the competent Court having jurisdiction to try the case in view of this judgment.